Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Natural selection is a conservative process and not a creative one.
Clearly, that creature which fails to survive and procreate will not have offspring.
The template for the physical make-up of the organism, will not be utilized in the creation of a new life form.
Should it carry any genetic abnormalities inconsistent with life, they will end with its death.

And, that is what we end up with, abolishing God in our hearts, death; all becomes simply dust.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Aloysium:
Random mutations and natural selection? I don’t think so.
Personal opinions do not count for much in science. Data does. Do you have any data to show us?
Seeing is believing.
So, where can I see the designer you keep talking about?

rossum
And that is what this thread is about. Darwinism is not science; It is opinion repeated over and over and over again to the point that people cannot see what is in front of them.

I’m not a fan of God as designer, or grand magician.
Father, Son and Holy Spirit - Divine eternal Love, for sure.
Creator and Artist would seem applicable titles, when we gaze at the wonders that reveal His glory.

As to why not everyone sees Him, since you are a Buddhist, I would reply that the illusion is too appealing. The search for transient satisfactions, winning an argument let’s say, is too engrossing. In the silence, in prayer and contemplation, one begins to see through the eye of faith what has been there all along.
 
Last edited:
Darwinism is not science; It is opinion repeated over and over and over again to the point that people cannot see what is in front of them.
If you accept microevolution then you are accepting the basic elements of Darwin’s theory: variation and natural selection. Since we can easily observe microevolution, then we can observe the evolution is science.

rossum
 
Natural selection seems to explain quite well what we see in nature, however, like most knowledge derived from science, it is incomplete.

As someone with a background in natural sciences, and as a Catholic, I have no conflicting feelings about my faith and the pursuit of knowledge using science. In fact, it is one of the more comforting elements of the Catholic Church IMO that there is such a rich history of science and that science is embraced so wholly.

Some people seem to get uncomfortable that a theory such as Darwin’s can’t be fully reconciled with Genesis. But from what I know, the Church is clear that Genesis is not to be read as a literal text or as science.
 
Last edited:
Humani Generis:
  1. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.
"36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”
 
Some aspects of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution are true, some are not. For example, natural selection is a fact, so is true. But on the other hand, Darwin’s “Tree of Life” - that is to say, all life on earth shares a common ancestor, is not a fact - and is actually false because it is a fairy tale invented by Satan that contradicts Sacred Scripture.
 
No, it means that genetic material changes always and this sometimes allow a better fit in environment.
It’s not evidence? Then why is antibiotic resistance often cited as an example of “evolution in action” or “evolution in real time”? We are told that macroevolution can occur because microevolutions are observed - ie, billions of years of microevolutions can add up up to macroevolution … and antibiotic resistance is cited as an example of microevolution.
 
What can we see right now evolving into a new species ?
Speciation is an observed fact, but it doesn’t mean apes can evolve into humans or that rodents can evolve into whales. All speciation means basically is that one group of orgaisms can split into separate, isolated sub-groups (that may end up not being to breed with one another). Darwinists use this fact to porclaim that “new species” have been observed to arise - et Voila! … evolution. It’s just another deceptive word-game Darwinists play to delude themselves and anyone else within earshot.

Consider the Green Warbler: They have sub-divided into distinct, separate sub-groups, but they are still Green Warblers - this is nothing more than a demonstration of genetic variance within a species being exploited by natural selection. It doesn’t mean Green Warblers are on their way to evolving into eagles or pelicans or penguins or even giraffes.
 
Last edited:
We now understand there are 500 or so conserved genes in most life forms. From these 500 “building blocks” just about every living thing can come from. They are packed with instruction sets.

One has to answer the challenge who added the information?
Apparently, instruction sets can write themselves. Science says so, so it must be true. Ridiculously complex machines can build themselves too. Nothingness is amazing.
 
Last edited:
This is all we need … another heretic who hasn’t accepted this doctrine of demons.
 
. Neglecting the complexity of behaviour, here’s some internet photos of just the structure of some pretty awesome creatures … Random mutations and natural selection? I don’t think so. Seeing is believing.
" … 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools …" - Romans 1.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top